INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA(IMAP)

INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA(IMAP)

LEGAL NOTICEThe designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of UNEP/MAP concerning the legal status of any State, Territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitationof their frontiers or boundaries.

COPYRIGHTThis publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permissionfrom the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP/MAP would appreciate receiving a copy of any pu-blication that uses this publication as a source. This publication cannot be used for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoeverwithout permission in writing from UNEP/MAP. © 2016 United Nations Environment Programme / Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) P.O. Box 18019, Athens, Greece

For bibliographic purposes this volume may be cited as:Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Mediterranean Sea and Coast and Related Assessment CriteriaUNEP/MAP Athens, Greece (2016).

UNEP/MAP - United Nation Environment Programme - Mediterranean Action Plan48, Vassileos Konstantinou Avenue | 11635 Athens | Greecewww.unepmap.org

Graphic layout and productionFinal layout and production were prepared by Elena Porrazzo, INFO/RAC - Information and Communication Regional Activity Centrewww.info-rac.org

Photograps by Elena Porrazzo, 2016

UNEP/MAP Information officeMrs. Hoda ElturkUNEP/MAP48, Vassileos Konstantinou Avenue | 11635 Athens | GreeceTel.: +30 210 7273100 | Fax: +30 210 7253196

UNEP/MAP, Official document series 1/2016ISBN 978-92-807-3592-5

July 2016

This publication is funded by the European Union

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 2

I. Introduction 3

II. IMAP common principles and structure 3

1. Overarching principles and the overall IMAP structure 3

2. IMAP integrated monitoring 4

3. IMAP integrated assessment 4

4. UNEP/MAP Strategy towards an Integrated Data and Information System 5

5. Cooperation with other relevant regional bodies in the context of IMAP 5

III. Key elements of IMAP 6

1. Common Indicators 6

2. Monitoring and assessment of biodiversity and NIS related common indicators 7

3. Monitoring and assessment of pollution and litter related common indicators 9

4. Monitoring and assessment of coastal ecosystems and landscapes and hydrography related common indicators 12

5. Monitoring Ecological Objective 11: Energy including underwater noise 13

Annex 1 Reference list of species and habitats 15

Annex 2 Pollution/Litter related Assessment Criteria 23

INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (IMAP)

FOREWORDBy Gaetano Leone, Coordinator of the Mediterranean Action Plan

At their 19th Ordinary Meeting (COP 19, Athens, Greece, 9-12 February2016), the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protectionof the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediter-ranean (Barcelona Convention) - namely 21 Mediterranean countriesand the European Union - adopted a novel and ambitious IntegratedMonitoring and Assessment Programme and related Assessment Cri-teria (IMAP). IMAP is a key achievement for the Mediterranean region, which willenable for the first time a quantitative, integrated analysis of the stateof the marine and coastal environment, covering pollution and ma-rine litter, biodiversity, non-indigenous species, coast, and hydrogra-phy, based on common regional indicators, targets and GoodEnvironmental Status (GES) descriptions. IMAP describes the strategy, themes, and products that the BarcelonaConvention Contracting Parties are aiming to deliver, through colla-borative efforts in the framework of the MAP Barcelona Convention,during the second cycle of the implementation of the Ecosystem Ap-proach Process in 2016-2021. The ultimate goal is to assess the statusof the Mediterranean sea and coast, as a basis for enhanced action. IMAP and the common indicators that are its backbone are the out-come of the Ecosystem Approach Process The Ecosystem Approachprocess was specified at the 15th Meeting of the Contracting Partiesto the Barcelona Convention, in Decision IG. 17/6, with the vision of“A healthy Mediterranean with marine and coastal ecosystems thatare productive and biologically diverse for the benefit of present andfuture generations” and an Ecosystem Approach Roadmap, aimingto achieve this vision., and the coordinated efforts of the ContractingParties at all levels. In line with the Ecosystem Approach Process asearly as 2008, the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Conventionagreed to undertake the following key steps: • Definition of an Ecological Vision for the Mediterranean; • Setting of common Mediterranean strategic goals; • Identification of important ecosystem properties and assessmentof ecological status and pressures;

• Development of a set of ecological objectives corresponding to theVision and strategic goals;

• Derivation of operational objectives with indicators and target le-vels;

• Revision of existing monitoring programmes for ongoing asses-sment and regular updating of targets;

• Development and review of relevant action plans and programmes. Subsequently, the Parties agreed on strategic goals to achieve theEcosystem Approach vision, on 11 Ecological Objectives, and on mat-ching Good Environmental Status descriptions, targets and indicators.

Following the approval of this ambitious framework for the integratedmonitoring and assessment in the Mediterranean at COP 19, the ini-tial implementation phase starts in 2016 through a number of stepsthat are expected to cover the next 3 years, i.e.: · supporting the integration process at national level (review of coun-try level existing national monitoring and assessment programmesin line with IMAP principles, common indicators);

· updating GES definitions and further refining the assessment criteria; · developing a Quality Status Report at regional level in 2017. The action and the goals ahead of us to make IMAP a reality will re-quire the full commitment of the Contracting Parties to implementthe new monitoring and assessment scheme at the country level, aswell as country capacity assistance and training to be provided byUNEP/MAP in response to IMAP implementation needs. Furthermore, a successful IMAP implementation will also rely on theapplication of Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) prin-ciples, both at national and regional level, and on the developmentof an IMAP-compatible Integrated Data and Information System wi-thin UNEP/MAP. Equally important will be the further cooperationbetween countries, but also at regional level, with key partners suchas the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)and the Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of Ceta-ceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlanticarea (ACCOBAMS). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges theimportance of the regional and sub-regional dimensions, regionaleconomic integration and interconnectivity in sustainable develop-ment. Regional and sub-regional frameworks are recognised as faci-litating the effective translation of sustainable development policiesintro concrete action at the national level. Regional Sea Programmeshave an important role to play in this sense with their mandates,structures and partnerships. The UNEP/MAP Barcelona Conventionown instruments and activities are, therefore, relevant not only forthe achievement of GES but also for the implementation of the 2030Agenda and the SDGs. In this context, IMAP is an initiative that willcontribute to the regional follow-up, and measuring of achievementof the relevant SDGs and associated targets. At UNEP/MAP, we firmly believe that the agreement on IMAP is a mi-lestone in the successful history of the MAP-Barcelona Convention.It provides the basis for a solid assessment of the Good Environmen-tal Status of the Mediterranean, and it shows again the commitmentof all Contracting Parties to the protection of the environment of the“Mare Nostrum” through cooperation and dialogue. We are ready to meet the challenges of the IMAP initial implemen-tation phase, driven by our common vision: “A healthy Mediterraneanwith marine and coastal ecosystems that are productive and biolo-gically diverse for the benefit of present and future generations”.

1. The Ecosystem Approach process was specified at the 15th Meeting of theContracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, in Decision IG. 17/6, with the visionof “A healthy Mediterranean with marine and coastal ecosystems that are productive

and biologically diverse for the benefit of present and future generations” and anEcosystem Approach Roadmap, aiming to achieve this vision.

2

INTEGRATED MONITORINGAND ASSESSMENTPROGRAMME OF THE MEDITERRANEANSEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENTCRITERIAI. INTRODUCTION

1. Monitoring and assessment, based on scientific knowledge,of the sea and coast is the indispensable basis for themanagement of human activities, in view of promotingsustainable use of the seas and coasts and conserving marineecosystems and their sustainable development. The IntegratedMonitoring and Assessment Programme of the MediterraneanSea and Coast and Related Assessment Criteria (IMAP) describesthe strategy, themes, and products that the BarcelonaConvention Contracting Parties are aiming to deliver, throughcollaborative efforts inside the UNEP/MAP Barcelona Convention,over the second cycle of the implementation of the EcosystemApproach Process (EcAp process), i.e. over 2016-2021, in orderto assess the status of the Mediterranean sea and coast, as abasis for further and/or strengthened measures.

Background

2. IMAP builds on the monitoring and assessment relatedprovisions of the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols, previousDecisions of the Contracting Parties related to monitoring andassessment, and to the EcAp process, including on Decision IG.21/3 and the expert level discussions mobilized based on thisDecision, such as the ones taking place in the CorrespondenceGroups on Good Environmental Status (COR GEST) and Monitoring(CORMON), as well as the 4th and 5th EcAp Coordination Group.

3. In addition, the development of IMAP took due account ofthe Contracting Parties’ existing monitoring and assessmentprogrammes, practices of other Regional Sea Conventions andother Regional bodies.

Timeline

4. IMAP is aiming to deliver over 2016-2021 its objectives asdescribed above. It is introduced first however in an initial phase(in line with Decision IG. 21/3, in between 2016-2019), duringwhich the existing national monitoring and assessment

programmes will be integrated, in line with the IMAP structureand principles and based on the agreed common indicators. Thisimplies in practice that the existing national monitoring andassessment programmes will be reviewed and revised asappropriate so that national implementation of IMAP can befulfilled in a sufficient manner.

The main outputs during the initial phase of IMAP will includethe update of GES definitions, further refinement of assessmentcriteria and development of national level integrated monitoringand assessment programmes.

5. Furthermore, the Quality Status Report in 2017 and the Stateof Environment and Development Report in 2019 will build onthe structure, objectives and data collected under IMAP.

The validity of the IMAP should be reviewed once at the end ofevery EcAp six year cycle, and in addition it should be updatedand revised as necessary on a biennial basis, based on lessonslearnt of the implementation of the IMAP and on new scientificand policy developments.

II. IMAP COMMON PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE

1. Overarching principles and the overall IMAPstructure

6. The overarching principles guiding the development of theIMAP include (i) adequacy; (ii) coordination and coherence; (iii)data architecture and interoperability based on commonparameters; (iv) concept of adaptive monitoring; (v) risk-basedapproach to monitoring and assessment, and (v) theprecautionary principle, in addition to the overall aim ofintegration.

In line with the above overarching principles, data andinformation is gathered through integrated monitoring activitieson the national level and shared in a manner that creates acompatible, shared regional pool of data, usable by eachContracting Party, as described under at point 4.

7. The IMAP information system will ensure the establishmentof the regional pool of data based on SEIS principles that willallow the production of common indicator assessment reportsin an integrated manner, following the monitoring specifics anddata provided, which ensures comparability across theMediterranean region.

3INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMEOF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

8. In line with the above, integration is achieved through IMAPboth at monitoring level, through an integrated monitoringsystem, following common principles and undertaken in acoordinated manner and at assessment level, with the overallaim to assess the overall status of the marine and coastalenvironment.

2. IMAP integrated monitoring

9. The IMAP monitoring requirements focus on, based on agreedcommon indicators, parameters that are indicative of the stateof the environment, the prevailing anthropogenic pressures andtheir impacts, and the progress towards the good environmentalstatus (ecological objectives and targets). The monitoring iscarried out in such a way that an assessment with adequateconfidence and precision is achieved.

10. The IMAP sets out the basis for how the Contracting Partiesshould design and carry out their national integrated monitoringprogrammes and work together in the framework of theUNEP/MAP Barcelona Convention to produce and updatecommon indicator based regional assessments on the status ofthe Mediterranean Sea and coast.

11. During the initial phase of IMAP (2016-2019), ContractingParties will:

• During 2016-2017, update their existing monitoringprogrammes in order to cover the IMAP areas, commonindicators in line with the IMAP, and, based on the IntegratedMonitoring and Assessment Guidance, Common Indicator FactSheets. It has to be noted that a number of Contracting Partiedhave already developed integrated national monitoringprogrammes;

• Continue reporting based on their existing national monitoringprogrammes until they are updated into a national IntegratedMonitoring Programme;

• Following the update of their existing monitoring programmes,report quality assured data following a common regionalmonitoring reporting template (please see more on this underpoint 4);

12. During national implementation, the Contracting Parties areencouraged to coordinate within and between each other inorder to use resources in an efficient way. Shared monitoring

stations and activities, information, and data could be stepstowards this direction.

3. IMAP integrated assessment

13. The IMAP assessment products, produced by the UNAP/MAPSecretariat, including the Common Indicator Assessment FactSheets, and the planned integrated assessments (2017 StatusQuality Report, 2019 State of Environment and DevelopmentReport, 2023 State of Environment Report), should be mainlybased on the common indicators and monitoring data providedby Contracting Parties.

14. In areas of scientific and/or data gaps, the assessmentproducts can also build on relevant scientific projects, pilotoutcomes, and comparable data of other regional organizationsand in case these are not available, on scientific literature. Inaddition, they will analyze trends, drivers and will build onavailable socio-economic data.

15. The common indicator assessment fact sheets provideinformation on the status of the environment and informationneeded to evaluate the severity of environmental problems anddistance from EcAp targets, ecological objectives and GoodEnvironmental Status (GES) description.

The common indicator assessment fact sheets are linked tospecific Ecological Objectives (EOs) and together they indicatewhether the GES related to the specific EO is met or not.Following the EO level assessment, the integrated assessmenttakes place on the state of the Mediterranean Sea and Coast.

16. The 2017 Status Quality Report will be based on the commonindicators, and common indicator assessment fact sheetsestablished for them, following a model to be developed by theSecretariat in cooperation with the Contracting Parties throughCORMONs by the end of 2016, and will consider the data fromthe most recent national monitoring and relevant scientificprojects and pilots undertaken relevant to the IMAP.

17. During the development of the above an integratedapproach for determining and assessing GES will be used,considering the Integrated Monitoring and AssessmentGuidance, describing state-based common indicators andexplicitly relating them to the pressure-based indicators.

4

4. UNEP/MAP Strategy towards an IntegratedData and Information System

18. Assessments arising from monitoring data are criticallydependent upon practical mechanisms for handling data fromdifferent activities that ensure that documents, data, andproducts are managed consistently and are easily available tousers. This will support integrated assessments, for example fromintegrated biological and chemical programmes, or linking theobserved changes in spatial distribution and temporal trends insubstances or their effects to inputs into the UNEP/MAPBarcelona Convention maritime area.

19. Data storage and handling processes are therefore central,and it is important that the role of the various components inthis is clear and continuously developed and strengthened.

20. The IMAP thus requires an updated and integrated dataand information system for UNEP/MAP Barcelona Conventionwith clear set roles for data handling and assessment for thevarious components and with a user-friendly reporting platformfor Contracting Parties, based on the following strategic points:

• The UNEP/MAP Barcelona Convention data and informationactivities aim to achieve a reliable, quantitative assessment ofthe status of the Mediterranean Sea and Coast;

• The UNEP/MAP Barcelona Convention data and informationactivities should facilitate access and knowledge of the generalpublic to environmental information.

21. Basic activities, core elements of the UNEP/MAP BarcelonaConvention integrated data and information system should include:

• Based on the structure of the Common Indicator Fact Sheets,develop region-wide, electronic, common indicator basedmonitoring reporting formats and up-to-date tools for dataexchange;

• implement relevant quality control and validation procedures;

• make assessment products available in an integrated manner,on a common platform;

• make data and information available using harmonizedstandards and practices, following the UNEP access-to-information policy (UNEP/EA. 1/INF/23).

5. Cooperation with other relevant regional bodies in the context of IMAP

22. The current IMAP covers with agreed common indicatorsthe ecological objectives related to biodiversity (EO1), non-indigenous species (EO2), eutrophication (EO5), hydrography(EO7), coast (EO8), contaminants (EO9), and marine litter (EO10).

23. In addition, regarding marine noise (EO11), IMAP includescandidate common indicators, with the intention for thesecandidate common indicators to be further developed, basedon pilot monitoring activities, additional expert knowledge, andscientific developments, during the initial phase of IMAP.

24. While some of the elements of fisheries (EO3) and marinefood webs (EO4) are partly covered by the monitoring andassessment of EO1 and EO2 and the Contracting Parties haveagreed on the GFCM developed list of common indicators, themonitoring and assessment specifics of EO3 are still beingdeveloped by the GFCM, in close cooperation with UNEP/MAP.During the initial phase of IMAP implementation, a clearroadmap will be developed by the Secretariat in collaborationwith GFCM and other relevant partners on the monitoringprogramme and assessment for EO4 and EO6.

25. In light of the above, it is an absolute necessity forUNEP/MAP to strengthen its cooperation with the relevantregional bodies, especially in relation to:

• EO1, both with the General Fisheries Commission for theMediterranean (GFCM) for commercial species of fish andshellfish and the Secretariat of the Agreement on theConservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Seaand contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS), noting that theACCOBAMS Survey Initiative, to be undertaken during 2016-2019, will provide important inputs (in terms of monitoringmethodologies, capacity building and reliable data onabundance and distribution of cetaceans);

• EO3, with the GFCM, noting that the EO3 related commonindicators will be further developed and assessed by GFCM(with assessment results provided to UNEP/MAP in order toundertake the 2017 and following integrated assessments);

• EO11, with ACCOBAMS, noting that further development of thecandidate common indicators will need to be carried out in aclose cooperation between UNEP/MAP and ACCOBAMS in light

5INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMEOF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

of pilot monitoring activities, additional expert knowledge, andscientific developments, during the initial phase of IMAP, andconsidering that ACCOBAMS is undertaking an identificationof noise hot spots in the Mediterranean.

26. In addition, cooperation with other regional and internationalbodies will be key for the successful implementation of IMAP, toensure that no double obligation is created for those ContractingParties, which are Parties to various Regional Seas Conventionsand/or members of the European Union and undertakemonitoring activities under other specific frames.

27. Cooperation with other regional and international bodiescan also strengthen the cost-efficiency and scientific adequacyof IMAP. Exchange of best practices and information isencouraged during the IMAP implementation, both in betweenContracting Parties participating in various monitoringprogrammes and in between UNEP/MAP and other relevantregional, international bodies.

III. KEY ELEMENTS OF IMAP

1. Common Indicators

28. The common indicators are the backbone of IMAP.

29. In the context of the Barcelona Convention, a commonindicator is an indicator that summarizes data into a simple,standardized, and communicable figure and is ideally applicablein the whole Mediterranean basin, or at least on the level of sub-regions, and is monitored by all Contracting Parties. A commonindicator is able to give an indication of the degree of threat orchange in the marine ecosystem and can deliver valuableinformation to decision makers.

30. Candidate indicators are indicators which still have manyoutstanding issues regarding their monitoring and assessmentand therefore are recommended to be monitored in the initialphase of IMAP on a pilot and voluntary basis.

The Common and candidate indicators agreed upon, which areat the core of IMAP, include:

1. Habitat distributional range (EO1) to also consider habitat ex-tent as a relevant attribute;2. Condition of the habitat’s typical species and communities(EO1);

3. Species distributional range (EO1 related to marine mammals,seabirds, marine reptiles);4. Population abundance of selected species (EO1, related to ma-rine mammals, seabirds, marine reptiles);5. Population demographic characteristics (EO1, e.g. body sizeor age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortalityrates related to marine mammals, seabirds, marine reptiles);6. Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence, and spatial distri-bution of non-indigenous species, particularly invasive, non-in-digenous species, notably in risk areas (EO2, in relation to themain vectors and pathways of spreading of such species);7. Spawning stock Biomass (EO3);8. Total landings (EO3);9. Fishing Mortality (EO3);10. Fishing effort (EO3);11. Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) or Landing per unit of effort(LPUE) as a proxy (EO3);12. Bycatch of vulnerable and non-target species (EO1 and EO3)13. Concentration of key nutrients in water column (EO5);14. Chlorophyll-a concentration in water column (EO5);15. Location and extent of the habitats impacted directly by hy-drographic alterations (EO7) to also feed the assessment of EO1on habitat extent;16. Length of coastline subject to physical disturbance due tothe influence of man-made structures (EO8) to also feed the as-sessment of EO1 on habitat extent;17. Concentration of key harmful contaminants measured in therelevant matrix (EO9, related to biota, sediment, seawater);18. Level of pollution effects of key contaminants where a causeand effect relationship has been established (EO9);19. Occurrence, origin (where possible), and extent of acute pol-lution events (e.g. slicks from oil, oil products and hazardous sub-stances) and their impact on biota affected by this pollution (EO9); 20. Actual levels of contaminants that have been detected andnumber of contaminants which have exceeded maximum regu-latory levels in commonly consumed seafood (EO9);21. Percentage of intestinal enterococci concentration measure-ments within established standards (EO9);22. Trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or depo-sited on coastlines (including analysis of its composition, spatialdistribution and, where possible, source.) (EO10);23. Trends in the amount of litter in the water column includingmicroplastics and on the seafloor (EO10);24. Candidate Indicator: Trends in the amount of litter ingestedby or entangling marine organisms focusing on selected mam-mals, marine birds and marine turtles (EO10);25. Candidate Indicator: Land use change (EO8)

6

26. Candidate indicator: Proportion of days and geographical di-stribution where loud, low, and mid-frequency impulsive soundsexceed levels that are likely to entail significant impact on marineanimals (EO11)27. Candidate Indicator: Levels of continuous low frequencysounds with the use of models as appropriate (EO11)

31. During the implementation of the initial phase of IMAP, theCORMONs will further develop the candidate indicators towardscommon indicators as well as to further refine the specifics ofagreed common indicators, in particular on geographical scale,in light of the ongoing implementation experience of IMAP.

NOTE ON GEOGRAPHIC REPORTING SCALES

32. A scale of reporting units’ needs to be defined during theinitial phase of IMAP taking into account both ecologicalconsiderations and management purposes, following a nestedapproach.

The nested approach aims to accommodate the needs of theabove is to take into account 4 main reporting scales:

(1) Whole region (i.e. Mediterranean Sea);(2) Mediterranean sub-regions, as presented in the InitialAssessment of the Mediterranean Sea, UNEP(DEPI)/MEDIG.20/Inf.8;(3) Coastal waters and other marine waters;(4) Subdivisions of coastal waters provided by ContractingParties

33. The work shall be undertaken to further develop reportinggeographical scales of the nested approach.

2. Monitoring and assessment of biodiversityand NIS related common indicators

BIODIVERSITY (EO1)

34. Biological diversity is the “variability among living organismsfrom all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and otheraquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which theyare part; this includes diversity within species, between speciesand of ecosystems”.

The common indicators to be monitored and assessed in relationto biodiversity are as following:COMMON INDICATOR 1: Habitat distributional range (EO1) toalso consider habitat extent as a relevant attribute;COMMON INDICATOR 2: Condition of the habitat’s typicalspecies and communities (EO1);COMMON INDICATOR 3: Species distributional range (EO1related to marine mammals, seabirds, marine reptiles);COMMON INDICATOR 4: Population abundance of selectedspecies (EO1, related to marine mammals, seabirds, marinereptiles);COMMON INDICATOR 5: Population demographiccharacteristics (EO1, e.g. body size or age class structure, sexratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates related to marinemammals, seabirds, marine reptiles)

35. As it is not possible or even necessary to monitor allattributes and components of biological diversity throughoutthe region, the IMAP monitoring is focusing, in line with the risk-based approach, on some representative sites and species, whichcan showcase the relationship between environmental pressuresand their main impacts on the marine environment.

In light of the above, a reference list of species and habitats tobe monitored is presented in Annex 1, noting that thoseContracting Parties who have the necessary means and arewilling to do so can go beyond the monitoring requirements ofthis reference list.

36. The Contracting Parties while updating their nationalmonitoring programmes need to include at least the monitoringof the reference list species and habitats with at least twomonitoring areas, one in a low pressure area (e.g. marineprotected area/ Specially Protected Area of MediterraneanImportance (SPAMI) and one in a high pressure area from humanactivity.

37. The few species of cetaceans regularly present in theMediterranean Sea should all be considered when developingthe national monitoring programmes. The Contracting Partiesshall make every effort to identify a minimum of two species tobe included in their national monitoring programme, based onthe specificity of their marine environment and biodiversity, andtaking account that these species should belong to at least twodifferent functional groups, where possible (Baleen whales/Deep-diving toothed whales/Shallow-diving toothed whales). As faras possible the choice of monitored species should be

7INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMEOF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

coordinated at sub regional scale to ensure coherence withcetacean population distribution in the Mediterranean Sea.

38. The methodologies and quality control and quality assurancemeasures available for Contracting Parties to consider during theupdate of their national monitoring programmes are describedin the Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidance.

39. Regarding the assessment of biodiversity, it has to be noted thatthe quantitative definition of GES is difficult, considering the varietyof assessment elements. The conceptual approach for a quantitativeGES setting can be framed in a way that the resilience of theecosystem is suited to accommodate the quantified biodiversity, or,in other words, it will be accounted in the determination of the GESboundaries as the “acceptable deviation from a reference state whichreflects conditions largely free from anthropogenic pressures.

40. The scale of monitoring is of specific importance for biodiversity,due to the nature of the biodiversity related common indicators.

41. For the high quality of assessment, baselines and thresholdswill need to be agreed on in line with the possible methods forthis set out in the Integrated Monitoring and AssessmentGuidance document, following the agreed scales of assessment,during the initial phase of IMAP implementation.

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES (EO2)

42. Non-indigenous species (NIS; synonyms: alien, exotic, non-native, allochthonous) are species, subspecies, or lower taxaintroduced outside of their natural range (past or present) andoutside of their natural dispersal potential.

43. Invasive alien species (IAS) are a subset of established NISwhich have spread, are spreading, or have demonstrated theirpotential to spread elsewhere, and which have an effect onbiological diversity and ecosystem functioning (by competingwith and on some occasions replacing native species), socio-economic values, and/or human health in invaded regions.

44. The common indicator in relation to NIS is: COMMON INDICATOR 6: Trends in abundance, temporaloccurrence, and spatial distribution of non-indigenous species,particularly invasive, non-indigenous species, notably in risk areas(EO2, in relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreadingof such species in the water column and seabed, as appropriate);

45. Non-indigenous species monitoring in the Mediterraneanis a trend monitoring, where it is key to establish reliable, long-term data-sets as a first step of monitoring.

46. In addition, monitoring of non-indigenous species (NIS),following the risk based approach, needs to be focused on theinvasive alien species (IAS) in IAS introduction “hot spots” (e.g.ports and their surrounding areas, docks, marinas, aquacultureinstallations, heated power plant effluents sites, offshorestructures). In addition, areas of special interest such as marineprotected areas or lagoons may be selected on a case by casebasis, as appropriate, depending on the proximity to alien speciesintroduction hot spots.

47. With the application of the risk based approach as statedabove, it is possible to obtain an overview of the non-indigenousspecies present at a large spatial scope while only monitoring arelatively small number of locations.

48. Based on existing regional databases, such as the MarineMediterranean Invasive Alien Species database, (MAMIAS), the“Andromeda” invasive species database for the Mediterraneanand Black Sea, and the European Alien Species InformationNetwork (EASIN), each Contracting Party will determine the listof IAS to be monitored in its national monitoring programmeduring the initial phase of the IMAP and start collecting dataregarding these species. Guidance on developing IAS nationallists and a regional and or sub regional reference list will bedeveloped by 2017.

49. The methodologies and quality control and qualityassurance measures available for Contracting Parties to considerduring the update of their national monitoring programmes, isdescribed in the Integrated Monitoring and AssessmentGuidance.

50. As the most effective monitoring method a RapidAssessment Survey (RAS) will be carried out, at least yearly bythe Contracting Parties in hot-spot areas (e.g. ports and theirsurrounding areas, docks, marinas, aquaculture installations,heated power plant effluents sites, offshore structures).

51. In addition, UNEP/MAP will develop during the initial phaseof IMAP citizen survey guidance for NIS, to enable ContractingParties to use this additional cost-efficient methodology, whichalso strengthens public awareness and participation.

8

52. Regarding the assessment of EO2, to be able to specifyfurther GES, it is important to understand which NIS are presentwithin the marine region and sub-regions. A baseline assessmentof the extant NIS would provide a reference point against whichthe success of future actions could be measured. After thisbaseline data has been gathered during the initial phase of IMAP,it will be possible to set reference levels, following theassessment criteria set out in the Integrated Monitoring andAssessment Guidance.

3. Monitoring and assessment of pollution and litter related common indicators

EUTROPHICATION (EO5)

53. Eutrophication is a process driven by enrichment of water bynutrients, especially compounds of nitrogen and/or phosphorus,leading to: increased growth, primary production and biomass ofalgae; changes in the balance of nutrients causing changes to thebalance of organisms; and water quality degradation.

54. Eutrophication related common indicators:Common indicators related to eutrophication:COMMON INDICATOR 13: Concentration of key nutrients inwater column (EO5);COMMON INDICATOR 14: Chlorophyll-a concentration in watercolumn (EO5)

55. The monitoring of eutrophication under IMAP builds on theexisting monitoring system of UNEP/MAP MED POL Monitoringprogramme, and most of the Contracting Parties already havemonitoring programmes in place for eutrophication all over theMediterranean basin, which constitutes a greater concern for theAdriatic than for the rest of sub-regions.

56. The Contracting Parties, building on their existing nationalmonitoring programmes and previous MED POL experience oneutrophication, will update these programmes during the initialphase of IMAP, with the overall aim to establish coherent datasetsat the entire regional sea level.

57. The methodologies and quality control and quality assurancemeasures available for Contracting Parties to consider during theupdate of their national monitoring programmes are describedin the Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidance, notingthe differences of needed techniques based on the level of theeutrophication problem in different sub-regions and countries.

58. The geographical scale of monitoring for the assessment ofGES for eutrophication will depend on the hydrological andmorphological conditions of an area, particularly the freshwaterinputs from rivers, the salinity, the general circulation, upwelling,and stratification.

59. The spatial distribution of the monitoring stations shouldthus, prior to the establishment of the eutrophication status ofthe marine sub-region/area, be risk-based and proportionate tothe anticipated extent of eutrophication in the sub-region underconsideration as well as its hydrographic characteristics aimingfor the determination of spatially homogeneous areas.Consequently, each Contracting Party would be required todetermine the optimum frequency per year and optimumlocations for their monitoring/sampling stations.

60. It is recommended that the Contracting Parties rely on theclassification scheme on chl-a concentration (�g/l) developedby MEDGIG as an assessment method that is easily applicableby all Mediterranean countries, based on the indicativethresholds and reference values adopted therein (see Table 2,Annex 2). In this context, water typology is a very importantfactor for the further development of classification schemes ina certain area regarding the definition of sub-regionalthresholds for chlorophyll-a.

61. In addition, countries, where appropriate may continue usingthe existing different eutrophication assessment methods suchas TRIX, Eutrophication scale, EI, HEAT, etc. at sub-regional ornational levels for assessing eutrophication trends.

62. The assessment methodology is well described in theIntegrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidance foreutrophication. The final report of the Informal Online workinggroup on eutrophication (UNEP((DEPI)/MED WG.420/Inf.11)contains assessment criteria regarding eutrophication which arepresented in Annex 2 of this document.

63. During the initial phase of IMAP implementation, work willbe undertaken to develop GES thresholds and referenceconditions for nutrients, transparency, and oxygen, using anadequate geographical scale as well as harmonize existingassessment tools through workshops, dialogue, comparativeexercises at regional/sub-regional/subdivision levels.

64. In addition, taking into account sub-regional differences,work will be also undertaken to develop assessment fact sheets

9INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMEOF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

for eutrophication common indicator based on specificsdescribed in the Integrated Monitoring and AssessmentGuidance.

CONTAMINANTS (EO9)

65. The monitoring of concentrations of a range of chemicalcontaminants in water, sediments and biota has a long standinghistory in the Mediterranean, under the auspices of theUNEP/MAP Barcelona Convention, its Land-Based Protocol, andUNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programmes. The IMAP buildson these existing legislative bases, programmes.

Contaminants related common indicators:COMMON INDICATOR 17: Concentration of key harmfulcontaminants measured in the relevant matrix (EO9, related tobiota, sediment, seawater);COMMON INDICATOR 18: Level of pollution effects of keycontaminants where a cause and effect relationship has beenestablished (EO9);COMMON INDICATOR 19: Occurrence, origin (where possible),extent of acute pollution events (e.g. slicks from oil, oilproducts and hazardous substances), and their impact onbiota affected by this pollution (EO9); COMMON INDICATOR 20: Actual levels of contaminants thathave been detected and number of contaminants which haveexceeded maximum regulatory levels in commonly consumedseafood (EO9);COMMON INDICATOR 21: Percentage of intestinal enterococciconcentration measurements within established standards(EO9)

66. All Mediterranean countries have programmes already inplace in relation to contaminants monitoring, however the scopeand scale of this monitoring varies. The IMAP thus aims to buildmore harmony in between the various existing monitoringprogrammes, based on the agreed common indicators.

67. Biological effects monitoring is generally less widely establishedin both national and international programmes, and the number ofcountries undertaking such studies (and the intensity of thecoverage) is much smaller. Therefore, it will be essential during theinitial phase of IMAP to expand and develop further the use ofbiological effects methods to cover properly the EO9.

68. In addition, important development areas during the initialphase of IMAP will include harmonisation of monitoring targets(determinants and matrices) within assessment sub-regions,development of suites of assessment criteria, integrated chemicaland biological assessment methods, and review of the scope ofthe monitoring programmes to ensure that those contaminantswhich are considered to be important within each assessmentarea are included in monitoring programmes.

69. Noting the above, the Contracting Parties will update theirexisting contaminants-related monitoring programmes bybuilding on their existing sampling station networks, existingmethodologies and statistical tools, existing data sets, andexisting time series as the basis of monitoring against a “nodeterioration” objective, aiming to cover the monitoring of allcontaminants related common indicators.

70. While most monitoring stations already exists, there is alsoa need for Contracting Parties to include in their monitoringprogramme areas beyond the coastal areas in a representativeand efficient way, where risks warrant coverage, in line with theIntegrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidance.

71. The methodologies, quality control and quality assurancemeasures, and reference methods available for ContractingParties to consider during the update of their nationalmonitoring programmes, are described in the IntegratedMonitoring and Assessment Guidance.

72. Regarding assessment, the Report UNEP(DEPI)MEDWG.394/Inf.3 on the development of assessment criteria forhazardous substances and the final report of the Informal Onlineworking group on contaminants (UNEP((DEPI)/MED WG.420/Inf.12)present key recommendations which will be followed to establisha forward procedure for monitoring the achievement of GES forcontaminants during the initial phase of IMAP (Annex 2 of thisAnnex).

73. Until EACs are defined under this follow-up, a two-foldapproach could be adopted to support monitoring for theassessment of GES:

a) a threshold value for GES(BAC), to be set usingconcentrations from relatively unpolluted areas on a sub-regional level and b) a decreasing trend should be observed from baselinevalues representing the actual level of contaminantsconcentrations.

10

74. Thus, GES can be defined for toxic metals (Hg, Cd, Pb),chlorinated organic compounds, and PAHs, for which monitoringdata exist as a result of running monitoring programmes, alreadyduring the initial phase of IMAP, and UNEP/MAP will concludeits relevant common indicator based assessment in light withthe above.

75. In addition, during the initial phase of IMAP, UNEP/MAP willalso prepare an adapted manual establishing the BAC and, whenpossible, the formulation of EAC for selected biomarkers inMediterranean species.

76. Regarding acute pollution events, while Contracting Partiesalready have an existing monitoring obligation under Article 9of the Prevention and Emergency Protocol, the efforts of whichneed to be strengthened, it is also foreseen that further analysisof the links in between acute pollution events and their effectson biota and the development of specific assessment criteria forthis latter should occur.

77. Monitoring of contaminants in biota used for humanconsumption also builds on existing monitoring requirementsand only measures contaminants in fish and other seafood forwhich regulatory limits have been set in national andinternational regulations for public health reasons.

78. National monitoring Programmes in this regard should atleast consider the following contaminants for which regulatorylevels have been laid down: Heavy metals (lead, cadmium, andmercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxins(including dioxin-like PCBs), with the species selectionconsiderations described in the Integrated Monitoring andAssessment Guidance.

79. Regarding percentage of intestinal enterococci concentrationmeasurements within established standards), the RevisedMediterranean guidelines for bathing waters of 2007 based onthe WHO guidelines for “Safe Recreational Water Environments”and on the EC Directive for “Bathing Waters” serve as a basis formonitoring.

80. The values agreed for the Mediterranean region in COP 17(Decision IG.20/9 Criteria and Standards for bathing watersquality in the framework of the implementation of Article 7 ofthe LBS Protocol, (UNEP/MAP, 2012) will be built on to furtherdefine GES for the indicator on pathogens in bathing watersduring the initial phase of IMAP.

MARINE LITTER (EO10)

81. Marine litter monitoring of IMAP is based on the RegionalPlan on Marine Litter management (Decision IG. 20/10, theMLRP) and on the following agreed common and candidateindicators:COMMON INDICATOR 22: Trends in the amount of litterwashed ashore and/or deposited on coastlines (EO10);COMMON INDICATOR 23: Trends in the amount of litter in thewater column including microplastics and on the seafloor(EO10);CANDIDATE INDICATOR 24: Trends in the amount of litteringested by or entangling marine organisms focusing onselected mammals, marine birds, and marine turtles (EO10)

82. In addition, as marine litter monitoring is a new area for theMediterranean, IMAP greatly builds on the UNEP Guidelines forComprehensive Beach Litter Assessment and on the Guidanceon Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas.

83. Contracting Parties will establish national monitoringprogrammes during the initial phase of IMAP in relation to thetwo common indicators and are encouraged to also consider intheir monitoring programmes the candidate indicator related toingested litter and to undertake pilot monitoring activities onthe latter.

84. Furthermore, is strongly recommended that ContractingParties, which currently have plans to monitor only in a subsetof environmental compartments, start with small pilot researchor development projects in other compartments. This wouldprovide baseline data to make an informed decision about future,full-scale monitoring programmes. Without information ontrends and amounts in all the marine compartments, a risk-basedapproach to litter monitoring and measures is not possible.

85. A considerable number of citizens, communities (NGOs, civilsociety initiatives), and environmental protection associationsand institutes across the Mediterranean are already taking partin activities to tackle marine litter. Contracting Parties areencouraged to enable them in the implementation of IMAP andempower them to help improve the evidence base needed formarine litter monitoring.

86. Regarding beach litter, cost-efficient and easy to followmonitoring and sampling methodologies and techniques arewell established, as described in the Integrated Monitoring and

11INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMEOF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Assessment Guidance, with at least two surveys per year in springand autumn recommended and ideally 4 surveys per year inspring, summer, autumn and winter.

87. A reduced master list of litter categories and items is alsoincluded in the Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidancewith the most frequent items found in Mediterranean beaches.The Contracting Parties can build on this reduced list as areference approach which is compatible with other lists, in relationto marine litter monitoring, and it can be used also as a practicalguide for the field work, enabling a coordinated and harmonizedmonitoring (including when operated by NGOs, as appropriate).

88. Regarding monitoring litter at the sea (Common Indicator17), due to the low occurrence of litter in midwater, the commonindicator focuses on surface and seafloor litter.

89. Due to the observation methodology (observation fromships), the type of marine litter objects can only be noted duringvery short visual observation. Therefore, in contrast to beachlitter, only rough litter categories can be determined, eventhough monitoring size categories should also include relevantsmall items, in line with the Integrated Monitoring andAssessment Guidance.

90. During the initial phase of IMAP, UNEP/MAP will develop aspecific Monitoring of floating litter protocol, on a regional basis.

91. Regarding sea floor litter (Common Indicator 17),opportunistic monitoring is the most cost-efficient method forsea-floor monitoring, building on the MediterraneanInternational Bottom Trawl Surveys (MEDITS) and compatibleprofessional trawling operations to couple monitoring effortsmay be the best approach to monitor litter on the sea-floor.There may be other opportunities to couple marine litter surveyswith other regular surveys (monitoring in marine reserves,offshore platforms, etc.) or programmes on biodiversity, withmethodologies and technical requirements prescribed in theIntegrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidance.

92. Regarding ingested litter (Candidate Indicator 18), due tothe limited availability of protocols and the state of knowledge,the candidate indicator’s focus during the initial phase of IMAPis on sea turtle Caretta caretta. UNEP/MAP thus will developduring the initial phase of IMAP a monitoring protocol for marinelitter in sea turtles with focus on relevant parameters forapplication in the Mediterranean.

93. As ingested litter is a candidate common indicator,Contracting Parties are not obliged to include its monitoring intheir national integrated monitoring programmes during theinitial phase of IMAP, but they are encouraged however toundertake pilots, further research on this indicator.

94. Furthermore, it is important to note that while micro-litteris considered to be part of IMAP, further work is necessary hereregional level, recognizing that our understanding of thepotential impacts of microplastic on organisms and theenvironment is still limited. Contracting Parties are thusencouraged also to undertake pilots, further research work inthis area.

95. The Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidanceincludes further specific methodologies, scales, and technicalconsiderations, which can guide the Contracting Partiesduring the development of their integrated monitoringprogramme’s marine litter component. The report of theInformal Online working group on Marine Litter(UNEP((DEPI)/MED WG.420/Inf.13) present recommendationsrelated to baselines (Annex 2).

4. Monitoring and assessment of coastalecosystems and landscapes and hydrographyrelated common indicators

HYDROGRAPHY

96. Monitoring of hydrographic alterations aim to addressdevelopments large enough to have the potential to alterhydrographical conditions, either at broad scale or throughacting cumulatively with other developments.Hydrography related common indicator:COMMON INDICATOR 15: Location and extent of the habitatsimpacted directly by hydrographic alterations (EO7)

97. As mentioned above, monitoring under this ecologicalobjective aims to address new developments of permanentalterations (constructions lasting for more than 10 years).

98. Contracting Parties thus when developing their nationalintegrated monitoring programme’s hydrography component,need to first agree on a common baseline year in the (very) nearfuture from which monitoring for good status can be basedupon. Furthermore, the Contracting Parties are stronglyencouraged to list their available records the licensing

12

applications for any proposed developments that would beconsidered large enough to have the potential to alterhydrographical conditions (constructions lasting for more than10 years). The monitoring following this approach, will confirmwhether there is need for any additional licensing, monitoringor assessment requirements for Government, marine licensingauthorities or developers.

COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS AND LANDSCAPES

99. One particularity of the IMAP (compared to other regional/RSCmonitoring and assessment programmes) is the inclusion of anEcological Objective focusing on the terrestrial part of the coastalzone. This reflects that the Barcelona Convention also covers coastalareas in its work, in line with the ICZM Protocol.

100. The coast related common indicator and candidatecommon indicator are as follows:

COMMON INDICATOR 16: Length of coastline subject tophysical disturbance due to the influence of man-madestructures (EO8);CANDIDATE INDICATOR 25: Land use change (EO8)

101. In line with the above, the monitoring under this EcologicalObjective is meant to address human activities causing coastalartificialisation by sealing the coast with the implementation ofcoastal structures and therefore impact coastal ecosystems andlandscapes.

102. The term ‘manmade structures’ typically refers, solely, tocoastal defences and ports (and indirectly to land claim). Coastalsegments are “artificialised” when all or part of the 100-meterarea on both sides (i.e. land and sea) are subject totransformation by Man, modifying their original physical state.

103. During the development of the national integratedmonitoring programmes’ coastal component, the ContractingParties, in line with the above, first need assess the length ofcoastline affected by man-made structures in the current state,in line with the Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Guidance,noting that the length of coastline subject to physicaldisturbance due to the influence of manmade structures is animpact indicator, which assumes that the coastlines occupied bymanmade structures are potentially impacted areas.

104. For assessment of indicator on length of coastlineinfluenced by man-made structures, definition of thresholds as% and / or m, to be developed, during the initial phase of IMAP,should be based on expert assisted procedure to take intoaccount the typology of the coast including its ecosystem goodsand services related to social and economic benefits. Theassessment should also include disturbance that comes fromsuch structures.

105. In relation to candidate indicator on land use change,Contracting Parties are encouraged to develop monitoringprogrammes and undertake monitoring activities in line withthe outcomes of the EcAp-MED pilot project, undertaken in theAdriatic. This indicator is very important for the analysis ofprocesses, including land-sea interaction, in coastal areas and asit is a simple tool it should be promoted and developed duringthe initial phase of IMAP. This will allow countries to proposeadequate measures to achieve GES (to be specified by thecountries themselves taking into account their local specificities.It will bring more objectivity into reporting on the state andevolution of their coastal zones and implementation of theecosystem approach in coastal zones. During the initial phaseof IMAP implementation further work will be undertaken toprovide support to the Contracting parties through training,capacity building activities, exchange of experience including asappropriate consultations at sub-regional level.

5. Monitoring Ecological Objective 11: Energy including underwater noise

106. This part of IMAP has been prepared, thanks to the supportof experts from the Joint ACCOBAMS/ASCOBANS/CMS WorkingGroup on Noise

The two candidate common indicators related to energyincluding underwater noise are:CANDIDATE INDICATOR 26: Proportion of days andgeographical distribution where loud, low, and mid-frequencyimpulsive sounds exceed levels that are likely to entailsignificant impact on marine animalsCANDIDATE INDICATOR 27: Levels of continuous lowfrequency sounds with the use of models as appropriateCompared to Descriptor 11 related indicators (MSFD),candidate indicators 26 and 27 are more closely related to theacoustic biology of key marine mammal species of theMediterranean which are known to be sensitive to noise, i.e.the fin whale, the sperm whale and the Cuvier’s beaked whale.

13INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMEOF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND COAST AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The proposed monitoring strategy of these two candidateindicators, as spelled out in the Integrated Monitoring andAssessment Guidance, represents a basis for further workduring the initial stage of IMAP towards an effective andwidely agreed monitoring of underwater noise at a regionalscale.

107. In line with the above, Contracting Parties are encouragedto develop monitoring programmes and undertake activities onthe two common indicators on a pilot basis during the initialphase of IMAP.

108. UNEP/MAP and ACCOBAMS, together with other interestedpartners, will continue during the initial phase of IMAP to furtherdevelop these candidate indicators towards common indicators.

109. For GES assessment related to EO11, three thresholds needto be established: a spatial and a temporal threshold concerningcandidate indicator 26 and a noise threshold concerningcandidate indicator 27.

110. During the initial phase of IMAP, the ACCOBAMS Secretariatin coordination with the competent MAP components will carryout the following tasks with a view to further develop technicalaspects of the candidate indicators in particular:

1. Reviewing what spatial and temporal thresholds havebeen selected by European Member States forimplementing impulsive noise indicator of D112. Fulfilling action CA 2b1 of the 2014-2016 Work Plan(“Identifying Noise Hotspots for cetaceans in theACCOBAMS area which is relevant to the Mediterranean SeaArea as provided for in the Barcelona Convention”), in orderto provide the necessary baseline information on space-time distribution of impulsive noise sources across theMediterranean3. Reviewing ambient noise data available for theMediterranean Sea as a follow up of the present work inorder to identify the threshold for continuous noiseindicator 11.1.2.

14

Explanatory Note/Glossary for parameters, criteria and prioritization used here:

ANNEX 1REFERENCE LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS

15ANNEX 1REFERENCE LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS

EN Term EN definition FR Terme FR définitionPredominant habitat Widely occurring and broadly defined habitat types

by abiotic characteristics (e.g. EUNIS level 3), referredto in Table 1 of Annex III to the EC Marine StrategyFramework Directive (2008/56/EC)

Habitats principaux Types d'habitats à un haut niveau typologique,définis par des caractéristiques abiotiques (e.g.EUNIS level 3), cités dans le tableau 1 de l'annexeIII de la Directive européenne Cadre StratégieMilieux Marins (2008/56/EC)

Habitat This term addresses (as defined in EC Decision2010/477/UE) both the abiotic characteristics andthe associated biological community, treatingboth elements together (e.g. EUNIS level 5 or 6).This term may also refer to a number of habitatcomplexes (which means assessing, whereappropriate, the composition, extent and relativeproportions of habitats within such complexes)and to some functional habitats (such asspawning, breeding, resting, feeding areas andmigration routes)

Habitat Ce terme (tel que défini dans la Décision CE2010/477/UE), se réfère à la fois aux caractéristiquesabiotiques et à la communauté biologiqueassociée, de façon indissociables (e.g. EUNIS level5 ou 6). Ce terme peut également se référer àcertains complexes d'habitats (impliquant, siapproprié, dévaluer la composition, l'étendue et lesproportions relatives des habitats composant cecomplexe) et à certains habitats fonctionnels (telsque les frayères, les zones de reproduction, derepos, d'alimentation, et les couloirs migratoires)

Functional group (of species)

An ecologically relevant set of species, appliedhere in particular to the following (highly) mobilespecies groups: birds, reptiles, marine mammals,fish and cephalopods. Each functional grouprepresents a predominant ecological role (e.g.offshore surface-feeding birds, demersal fish)within the species group. This term is referred toin the EC Decision 2010/477/UE (Part B, species)

Groupe fonctionnel(d'espèces)

Un ensemble écologiquement cohérentd'espèces, appliqué ici en particulier aux espèces(largement) mobiles suivantes : oiseaux, reptiles,mammifères marins, poissons et céphalopodes.Chaque groupe fonctionnel représente un rôleécologique majeur (e.g. oiseaux se nourrisant aularge en sub-surface, poissons démersaux) ausein du groupe d'espèces. Ce terme est cité dansla Décision CE 2010/477/UE (Partie B, espèces)

Texel-Faial Criteria Cf. document downloadable at:http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ospar.org%2Fdocuments%2Fdbase%2Fdecrecs%2Fagreements%2F03-13e_texel_faial%2520criteria.doc&ei=r1MQVPP7GYvuaPm7gBA&usg=AFQjCNFFBqKlpeixMYiLZD1JqGJC_rAwTw&sig2=wG6kTCw1ZQvZJwazTNX7iw&bvm=bv.74649129,d.d2s

Critères de Texel-Faial Cf. document téléchargeable à:http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAAahUKEwjzto-7punGAhWIPxQKHYo0B1k&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ospar.org%2Fdocuments%2Fdbase%2Fdecrecs%2Fagreements%2F03-13f_criterestexel-faial.doc&ei=i7KsVbPFKYj_UIrpnMgF&usg=AFQjCNEVmuntg7oEq-C4n4tbGPpuM3B_0w&sig2=eVctr-Vg5--1LEVuFv97-A&bvm=bv.98197061,d.d24

(sub)regionalimportance (Texel-Faial Criteria)

A high proportion of the habitat or speciespopulation (at any time of its life cycle) occurswithin a specific biogeographic region and/or(sub)region of national responsibility, within theMediterranean Sea

Importance (sous-) régionale (critère Texel-Faial)

Une grande proportion de l'habitat ou de lapopulation de l'espèce (quel que soit les stadesde vie considéré) est situé dans une zonebiogéographique spécifique et/ou une (sous-)région relevant d'une responsabilité nationale, enMéditerranée

Rarity (Texel-Faial Criteria)

A habitat is assessed as being rare if it isrestricted to a limited number of locations or tosmall, few and scattered locations in theMediterranean Sea. A species is rare if the totalpopulation size is small. In case of a species thatis sessile or of restricted mobility at any time ofits life cycle, a species is rare if it occurs in alimited number of locations in the MediterraneanSea, and in relatively low numbers. In case of ahighly mobile species, the total population sizewill determine rarity

Rareté (critère Texel-Faial)

Un habitat est dit rare s'il est restreint à un nombrelimité de sites ou à quelques petits sites dispersésen Méditerranée, Une espèce est rare si sapopulation totale est faible. Dans le cas d'uneespèce sessile ou à mobilité restreinte, quel quesoit le stade de vie considéré, cette espèce est raresi son occurrence est limitée à nombre réduit desites en Méditerranée, et en faibles abondances.Dans le cas d'espèces largement mobiles, la taillede la population détermine sa rareté éventuelle

16

EN Term EN definition FR Terme FR définitionKey functional role(from Texel-FaialCriteria)

A species (population) or habitat, whichfunction(s) as a key role to support ecosystemprocesses and interactions. These key functionsmay be associated to natural productivity, trophicrole, remarkable biodiversity or "species functionalhabitats", such as spawning, breeding, resting andfeeding areas and migration routes

Rôle fonctionnel clé(d'après critère Texel-Faial)

Une espèce (population) ou un habitat, dontla(es) fonction(s) ont un rôle clé dans lesprocessus et interactions de l'écosystème. Cesfonctions clés peuvent être associées à uneproductivité naturelle, un rôle trophique, unebiodiversité remarquable, ou aux "habitatsfonctionnels d'espèces", tels que les zones defrayères, de reproduction, de repos,d'alimentation et les couloirs migratoires

Sensitivity (Texel-Faial Criteria)

A species (population) or habitat is “sensitive”when:a. it has low resistance (that is, it is easily adverselyaffected by human activity); and/orb. it has low resilience (that is, after an adverseeffect from human activity, recovery is likely to beachieved only over a long period)

Sensibilité (critère Texel-Faial)

Une espèce (population) ou un habitat est"sensible" si:a. il a une faible résistance (c’est-à-dire qu'il estfacilement impacté par les activités humaines);et/oub. il a une faible résilience (c’est-à-dire, qu'aprèsun impact dû à une activité humaine, il n'estsusceptible de récupérer qu'après une longuepériode)

Vulnerability A species (population) or habitat is "vulnerable"when it is exposed to a pressure, to which it issensitive (cf. column N to V)

Vulnérabilité Une espèce (population) ou un habitat est"vulnérable" s’il est exposé à une pression, àlaquelle il est sensible (cf. colonnes N à V)

Declining or threatening (from Texel-FaialCriteria)

A "declining" species (population) or habitatmeans an observed or indicated significantdecline in numbers, extent or quality (qualityrefers for a species to its life history parameters).The decline may be historic, recent or current. Thedecline can occur in the whole Mediterranean Seaarea or (sub) regionally. Where the decline is “clearand present”, and can be linked directly orindirectly to human activity, the species(population) or habitat is also considered to be“currently threatened”. Where there is a highprobability of significant decline linked directly orindirectly to human activity, the species(population) or habitat is considered to be“potentially threatened”

En déclin ou menacé(d'après critère Texel-Faial)

Une espèce (population) ou un habitat en"déclin" implique une diminution, observée oumesurée de façon significative, en abondance,étendue ou qualité (qualité se réfère pour uneespèce à ses paramètres démographiques). Ledéclin peut être historique, récent ou actuel. Ledéclin peut avoir lieu sur toute la Méditerranéeou une (sous-)région. Quand le déclin est "clairet avéré", et peut être lié directement ouindirectement à une activité humaine, l'espèce(population) ou l'habitat est aussi considérécomme "actuellement menacé". Quand il y a uneforte probabilité de déclin significatif, liédirectement ou indirectement à une activitéhumaine, l'espèce (population) ou l'habitat estconsidéré comme "potentiellement menacé"

Feasability (for monitoring)

Existence of methods and protocols to monitor aspecies (population) or habitat. Resources needed(logistic, technical and human) and actuallyexisting monitoring are detailed in column W toAG

Faisabilité (pour la surveillance)

Existance de méthodes et protocoles pour réaliserle suivi d'une espèce (population) ou d'unhabitat. Les ressources nécessaires (logistiques,techniques et humaines) et les suivisactuellement existant sont détaillés dans lescolonnes W à AG

Priority If a species or habitat meet at least 1 of the Texel-Faial criteria AND is vulnerable AND then it'smonitoring is technically feasible, its monitoringshould be highly prioritized. Besides,redundancies in selected species or habitatsrepresenting specific functionalgroups/predominant habitats, should beconsidered. Priority mean than sufficient resources(national and/or joint at (sub) regional scale)should be dedicated to acquire relevant data atsufficient spatial and temporal resolution. Lowprioritized species or habitats should also bemonitored, but data could be acquired at aminimum relevant spatial and temporalresolution, according to available resources (cf.pragmatic approach for assessment scale)

Priorité Si une espèce ou habitat réponds à au moins 1des critères de Texel-Faial ET est vulnérable ETque son suivi est techniquement faisable, sonsuivi doit être hautement prioritaire. Par ailleurs,la redondance entre les espèces ou habitatssélectionnés, représentatifs d'un groupefonctionnel ou habitat principal spécifique, doitêtre considérée. La priorité haute signifie que desressources suffisantes (nationales et/ou jointes àl'échelle de la (sous-)région) devraient êtredédiées pour acquérir des données pertinentesà une résolution spatiale et temporelle suffisante.Les espèces et habitats moins prioritairesdevraient aussi être suivis, mais les donnéespourraient être acquises à une résolution spatialeet temporelle minimale, mais pertinente, enfonction des ressources disponibles (cf. approchepragmatique pour l'échelle d'évaluation)

17ANNEX 1REFERENCE LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS

EN Term EN definition FR Terme FR définitionAssessment monitoring scale

For monitoring issue, assessment scale isexpressed as the relevant spatial and temporalresolution of required data. These resolutions(number and location of sampling stations,accuracy of remote detection, samplingfrequencies, etc.) are likely to be a compromise(cost-efficiency) between "high resolution" (whichenable a very accurate and complete assessment,but more expensive assessment) and a morepragmatic approach, identifying a resolution andsampling design in accordance with availableresources (less expensive, but which could leadto an incomplete or partial assessment)

Échelle d'évaluationpour la surveillance

Pour la surveillance, l'échelle d'évaluationcorrespond au plan d'échantillonnage et auxrésolutions spatiale et temporelle pertinentespour acquérir les données requises. Cesrésolutions (nombre et position des stationsd'échantillonnage, précision de la télédétection,fréquence d'échantillonnage, etc.) devraientêtre définies selon un compromis(coût/efficacité) entre une "haute résolution"(permettant une grande précision et uneévaluation complète, mais à un coût supérieur),et une approche plus pragmatique, adaptant larésolution et/ou le plan d'échantillonnage, selonles ressources disponibles (moins couteux, maispouvant conduire à une évaluation partielle ouincomplète)

Mediolittoral Bathymetric level, corresponding to the intertidalbenthic area (from higher to lower tide levels);organisms are in there submitted to alternatingimmersion and emersion

Mediolittoral Étage bathymétrique correspondant à la zonebenthique intertidale (comprise entre les niveauxdes plus hautes et des plus basses mers); lespeuplements y sont régulièrement soumis auxalternances d'émersion et immersion

Infralittoral Bathymetric level, associated to preferentialbenthic distribution area of photophilic organisms(approximatively, for Mediterranean Sea, from 0to -50 meters depth, on official marinebathymetric maps)

Infralittoral Étage bathymétrique correspondant à la zonebenthique de répartition préférentielle desorganismes photophiles (approximativement, enMéditerranée, de 0 à -50 mètres, sur les cartesmarines bathymétriques officielles)

Circalittoral Bathymetric level, associated to preferentialbenthic distribution area of sciaphilic organisms(approximatively, for Mediterranean Sea, from -50to -200 meters depth, on official marinebathymetric maps)

Circalittoral Étage bathymétrique correspondant à la zonebenthique de répartition préférentielle desorganismes sciaphiles (approximativement, enMéditerranée, de -50 à -200 mètres, sur les cartesmarines bathymétriques officielles)

Bathyal Bathymetric level, associated to darkness andcontinental slope (approximatively from -200 to -2000 meters depth, on official marine bathymetricmaps)

Bathyal Étage bathymétrique correspondant à la zoneaphotique et la pente continentale(approximativement de -200 à -2000 mètres, surles cartes marines bathymétriques officielles)

Abyssal Last bathymetric level, associated to darkness andplains after the continental slope (approximativelybelow -2000 meters depth, on official marinebathymetric maps)

Abyssal Dernier étage bathymétrique correspondant à lazone aphotique et des plaines au bas de la pentecontinentale (approximativement sous -2000mètres, sur les cartes marines bathymétriquesofficielles)

Coastal waters This term of “coastal waters” addresses here, forpelagic habitats, relatively low depth marinewaters, directly influenced by terrigeneous andfreshwaters inputs (approximatively from thecoast to the beginning of the continental shelf )

Eaux côtières Le terme “d'eaux côtières” se réfère ici, pour leshabitats pélagiques, à des eaux marines deprofondeurs relativement faible, soumises àl'influence directe des apports terrigènes et deseaux douces (approximativement de la côte audébut du plateau continental)

Shelf and Oceanic waters

This term of “shelf and oceanic waters” addresseshere, for pelagic habitat, offshore marine waters(shell, bathyal and abyss), less directly influencedby terrigeneous and freshwaters inputs. They arecharacterized by specific physico-chemicalconditions and biological communities

Eaux du plateau et océaniques

Les “eaux du plateau et océaniques” se réfère ici,pour les habitats pélagiques, aux eaux marinessituées au large (plateau, bathyal et abysses),moins soumises directement à l'influence desapports terrigènes et des eaux douces. Elles sontcaractérisées par des conditions physico-chimiques et des communautés biologiquesspécifiques

18

CE/OSPAR FR experts proposal (subdivision of toothed whales)

Marine mammals/Mammifères marins

Baleen whalesToothed walesSeals

Baleines à fanons (Mysticètes)Odontocètes épipélagiques stricts (alimentation entre 0 à -200 m)Odontocètes épi- et méso-bathy-pélagiques (alimentation de 0 à >-200 m)Phoques (pinnipèdes)

Reptiles Turtles Tortues marinesBirds/Oiseaux Coastal top predators

intertidal benthic-feedersinshore benthic feedersinshore surface-feedersinshore pelagic feedersoffshore surface feedersoffshore pelagic feeders

rédateur supérieur côtierà alimentation benthique littoral, côtier (côtier)à alimentation benthique subtidale, côtier (eaux côtières)à alimentation pélagique de surface, côtier (eaux côtières)à alimentation pélagique de sub-surface, côtier (eaux côtières)à alimentation pélagique de surface, au large (eaux du plateau etocéaniques)à alimentation pélagique de sub-surface, au large (eaux du plateau etocéaniques)

Fish/Poissons Diadromous bony fishDemersal coastal bony fishDemersal coastal elasmobranchPelagic coastal bony fishPelagic coastal elasmobranchsDemersal offshore bony fishDemersal offshore elasmobranchsPelagic offshore bony fishPelagic offshore elasmobranchs

Poissons diadromesPoissons osseux démersaux côtiers (eaux côtières)Elasmobranches démersaux côtiers (eaux côtières)Poissons osseux pélagiques côtiers (eaux côtières)elasmobranches pélagiques côtiers (eaux côtières)Poissons osseux démersaux du large (eaux du plateau et océaniques)elasmobranches démersaux du large (eaux du plateau et océaniques)Poissons osseux pélagiques du large (eaux du plateau et océaniques)elasmobranches pélagiques du large (eaux du plateau et océaniques)

Cephalopods/Céphalopodes Coastal cephalopodsOffshore cephalopods

Céphalopodes côtiers (eaux côtières)Céphalopodes du large (plateau et océaniques)

SPECIES CLASS SPECIES FUNCTIONAL GROUPS

19ANNEX 1REFERENCE LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS

20

21ANNEX 1REFERENCE LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS

22

a) EutrophicationIt is accepted that surface density is adopted as a proxy indicator for static stability as both temperature and salinity are relevant in thedynamic behaviour of a coastal marine system. More information on typology criteria and setting is presented in documentUNEP(DEPI)/MED WG 417/Inf.15.

The different coastal water types, in an ecological perspective, can be described as follows:• Type I coastal sites highly influenced by freshwater inputs• Type IIA coastal sites moderately influenced not directly affected by freshwater inputs

(Continent influence)• Type IIIW continental coast, coastal sites not influenced/affected by freshwater inputs

(Western Basin)• Type IIIE not influenced by freshwater input (Eastern Basin)• Type Island: coast (Western Basin)

In addition, coastal water type III was split in two different sub basins, the Western and the Eastern Mediterranean ones, according tothe different trophic conditions and is well documented in literature.

It is recommended to define the major coastal water types in the Mediterranean that have been inter calibrated (applicable forphytoplankton only) as presented in the table 13.

TABLE 1: MAJOR COASTAL WATER TYPES IN THE MEDITERRANEANType IIA,

Type I IIA Adriatic Type IIIW Type IIIE Type Island-Wσ t (density) <25 25<d<27 >27 >27 All rangesalinity <34.5 34.5<S<37.5 >37.5 >37.5 All range

With the view to assess eutrophication, it is recommended to rely on the classification scheme on chl-a concentration (μg/l) in coastalwaters as a parameter easily applicable by all Mediterranean countries based on the indicative thresholds and reference values presentedin Table 2.

TABLE 2: COASTAL WATER TYPES REFERENCE CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARIES IN THE MEDITERRANEANCoastal Water Typology Reference conditions of Chla (µg L-1) Boundaries of Chla (µg L-1) for G/M status

G_mean 90 % percentile G_mean 90 % percentileType I 1,4 3,334 -3,935 6,3 102 - 17,73

Type II-FR-SP 1,9 3,58 Type II-A Adriatic 0,33 0,8 1,5 4,0Type II-B Tyrrhenian 0,32 0,77 1,2 2,9Type III-W Adriatic 0,64 1,7Type III-W Tyrrhenian 0,48 1,17Type III-W FR-SP 0,9 1,80 Type III-E 0,1 0,4Type Island-W 0,6 1,2 – 1,22

23ANNEX 2POLLUTION/LITTER RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

ANNEX 2POLLUTION/LITTER RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

3. Reference and threshold (Good/Moderate status) derived values (G-mean annual valuesbased on long time series (>5 years) of monthly sampling at least) differ from type to typeon a sub-regional scale and were built with different strategies.4. Applicable to Golf of Lion Type I coastal waters5. Applicable to Adriatic type I coastal waters

b) Marine litter baselines valuesTABLE 3: MARINE LITTER BASELINE VALUESCommon Indicator minimum value maximum value mean value Baselines(16). Beaches (items/100 m) 11 3600 920 450-1400(17). Floating litter (items/km2) 0 195 3.9 3-5(17). Sea floor (items/km2) 0 7700 179 130-230(17). Microplastics 0 4.860.000 340.000 200.000 -(items/km2) 500.000(18). Sea TurtlesAffected turtles (%) 14% 92.5% 45.9% 40-60%Ingested litter (g) 0 14 1.37 1-3

Note:“It must be noted that the amount of existing information is limited to set definitive baselines that may be adjusted once the nationalmonitoring programs could provide additional data. Moreover, average values over large areas are difficult to harmonize, in particular forbeach litter. Also, the setting or derivation of baselines should take the local conditions into account and may follow a more localizedapproach. Finally, additional specific baselines may be decided by CPs on specific litter categories, especially when they may represent animportant part of litter found or a specific interest (targeted measures, etc.).”

c) Contaminants1. It is recommended to follow the OSPAR approach of a “traffic light” system for both contaminant concentrations and biologicalresponses where there are two “thresholds” T0 and T1 to be defined (OSPAR, 2008; Davies et al., 2012);2. It is recommended to adopt background concentrations (BCs) and background assessment concentrations (BACs) of contaminants(for naturally occurring substances) in sediments obtained from the analysis of pre-industrial layers of dated sediment cores establishedfor the Mediterranean region (UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG. 365/Inf.8) where appropriate, based on data availability;3. It is recommended to use for indicative purposes the existing environmental assessment criteria (EACs) of contaminants in sedimentsand biota and of biological responses established by ICES/OSPAR until new eco-toxicological information is available including forMediterranean species, (OSPAR, 2008; Davies et al., 2012);4. It is recommended to use the existing BACs and EACs of LMS, SoS, MN frequency and AChE activity biomarkers established (Davieset al., 2012) and further work to develop and discuss new BAC by using data from organisms sampled at sites/areas which theMediterranean contracting parties consider to be reference stations/areas, to be defined based on commonly agreed criteria.

24

TABLE 4 (A): UNEP/MAP BAC Levels for Trace Metals in SedimentsUNEP/MAP, 2011. Development of Assessment Criteria for hazardous Substances in the Mediterranean. UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG. 365/Inf.8.Athens, 2011.

Contaminant Sediments (μg/kg d.w.)Cd 150Hg 45Pb 30,000

TABLE 4 (B): Benedicto BAC Levels for Trace Metals in Mussels and FishContaminant aMussels (Mytilus bMussels (Brachidontes aFish (Mullus

galloprovincialis) variabilis) barbatus)(mg/kg d.w.) (mg/kg d.w.) (mg/kg d.w.)

Cd 1.088 1.00 0.016cHg 0.188 0.17 0.600Pb 3.80 1.00 0.559

a preliminary data for the NW Mediterranean; b additional BAC data provided by Lebanon; c earlier estimation (UNEP(DEPI)MED WG.365/Inf.8)

TABLE 5: OSPAR EAC LEVELSOSPAR Commission, Agreement number 2009-2. Agreement on CEMP Assessment Criteria for the QSR 2010. Publication number2009/461. CEMP: 2008/2009 Assessment of trends and concentrations of selected hazardous substances in sediments and biota.Publication number 2009/390. OSPAR QSR 2000-Chapter 4.5 (A): Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Contaminant Mussels (μg/kg d.w.) aSediments(μg/kg d.w.)Phenantrene 1700 240Anthracene 290 85Fluorantene 110 600

Pyrene 100 665Benzo[a]anthracene 80 261

Chrysene - 384Benzo[k]fluoranthene 260 -

Benzo[a]pyrene 600 430Benzo[ghi]perylene 110 85

Indene[123-c,d]pyrene - 240a Effects Range Low (ERLs)

25ANNEX 2POLLUTION/LITTER RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

TABLE 5 (B): Organochlorinated Contaminants

Contaminant Mussels (μg/kg d.w.) Sediments (μg/kg d.w.) Fish (μg/kg lipid)CB28 3.2 - 64CB52 5.4 - 108CB101 6.0 - 120CB105 - - -CB118 1.2 - 24CB138 15.8 - 316CB153 80 - 1600CB156 - - -CB180 24 - 480

∑7CBS ICES - 11.5 -Lindane 1.45 3.0c 11bα-HCH - - -pp’DDE 5-50a 2.2 c -

HCB - 20.0 c -Dieldrin 5-50a 2.0 c -

a earlier data from QSR2000 Report; b μg/kg wet weight (CEMP 2008/2009); c Effects Range Low (ERLs)

TABLE 6: DAVIES LEVELS FOR BIOMARKERSICES Cooperative Research Report No. 315. 277 pp.

Biomarkers/Bioassays BAC levels in Mussels EAC levels in Mussels (Mytilus galloprovincilais) (Mytilus galloprovincilais)

(mg/kg d.w.) (mg/kg d.w.)Stress on Stress (days) 10 5

Lysosomal membrane stability Neutral Red Retention Assay (minutes) 120 50

Lysosomal membrane stabilityCytochemical method (minutes) 20 10

AChE activity (nmol min-1 mg-1 protein)in gills (French Mediterranean waters) 29 20

AChE activity (nmol min-1 mg-1 protein)in gills (Spanish Mediterranean waters) 15 10

Micronuclei frequency (0/00) in haemocytes 3,9 -

26

UNEP/MAPUnited Nations Environment Programme

Mediterranean Action PlanBarcelona Convention

48, Vassileos Konstantinou Avenue | 11635 Athens | GreeceTel.: +30 210 7273100 | Fax: +30 210 7253196

www.unepmap.org